Mummy back from Merola’s Schwabacher Summer Concert
Happy Friday! If you’re like me, you now spend the weekend anticipating the new version of Poldark on PBS Sunday nights. I still have vivid memories of being glued to the original series with my parents in late night reruns in the 80s. Watching Ross Poldark torn between Elizabeth and Demelza (and frequently thinking “won’t you wake up to what’s in front of you?”) I’ve been thinking about triangles. Last night at Merola’s wonderful Schwabacher Summer Concert a fabulous except from Verdi’s Don Carlo also made me think about the fascination of triangles (for those in the Bay Area, the concert is repeated Saturday at 2:00 for free outdoors at Yerba Buena Gardens).
The Mayfair Affair takes the Suzanne/Malcolm/Raoul triangle in some interesting new directions. This seemed a good time to ask what readers think of the current state of that triangle (is it even still a triangle?) and of literary triangles in general, and also to repost a post I originally put up in 2011 on Squaring the Triangle.
Have a great weekend!
Tracy
“Squaring the triangle” is a term the playwright hero of S.N. Behrman’s No Time for Comedy flippantly uses to describe what he does writing romantic comedies. I was thinking about this last week watching one of my favorite television shows, The Good Wife. The heroine is back together, at least on the surface, with the husband who betrayed her. Peter Florek is a deeply flawed character, yet I find him likable in many ways, and in last week’s episode I genuinely believed him when he said he’d fallen back in love with his life. I almost found myself wanting their marriage to work out. And that’s despite the fact that I really like Alicia’s colleague and old love, Will, and most of the time I desperately want the two of them to get together.
That’s the key to writing a really fascinating triangle, I think. Having all the characters interesting and sympathetic enough that one is somewhat torn about who ends up with whom. Which of course can create problems with also having a satisfying happily ever after, if such an ending is the goal of the story. As I’ve mentioned before, I think one of my favorite plays/movies, The Philadelphia Story, does this brilliantly in that both Mike and Dexter are sympathetic and possible options for Tracy (both much better than her stuffy fiancé George). I think often the viewer isn’t quite sure who will end up with whom. And yet the ending feels very right (at least to me).
Both Vienna Waltz and The Mask of Night have several triangles. I don’t really want Mélanie/Suzanne to go back to Raoul, at least not in that way (or mostly not in that way, to paraphrase both Charles and Mel in Mask). But I’m very fond of Raoul and I can definitely see that tug between them. As Jeanne adeptly pointed out in last week’s comments, he represents a world in which Mel can practice her talents to the fullest and be herself, whereas in Charles’s world she has to work more behind-the-scenes (though she manages rather a lot of adventure in any case). Raoul ended up much more sympathetic than I had at first envisioned when I wrote Secrets of a Lady, and I think that makes the dynamic among the three of them much more interesting. Not to mention that in addition to the residual romantic tension, there’s a spy dynamic, ideological issues, and a father-son story between Raoul and Charles that takes on more prominence in Mask.
The plot of Vienna Waltz is more or less built on triangles–the triangle of Tatiana, Tsar Alexander, and Metternich which forms the set-up of the murder discovery and investigation; Suzanne/Mel, Malcolm/Charles, and Tatiana (which, whatever else it is or is not, is certainly an emotional tug-of-war); and real life triangles such as both Metternich, the tsar and Wihelmine of Sagan, and Metternich, the tsar, and Princess Catherine Bagration (Metternich and Tsar Alexander definitely carried their rivalry into the boudoir). And then there’s the triangle which is still very much an open question at the end of the book of Dorothée, Count Clam-Martinitz, and Prince Talleyrand. Dorothée isn’t sure at the end of the novel which man she’ll end up with, and that’s certainly a real life triangle in which I can sympathize with all three participants.
What do you think of triangles in books? What are some of your favorite literary triangles? Are there times when you’ve been dissatisfied with the resolution of a triangle?
July 20, 2015 at 5:44 pm
Hi Tracy,
I have been wanting to comment on this post for a while, but my mind was drawing a blank on other literary triangles – was hoping someone else would respond and jog my memory. Anyway, hope it’s not too late, because I want to get to the most recent post also.
Regarding the Suzanne/Malcolm/Raoul triangle, I think it will always be a triangle to some extent because of the deep personal connections Raoul has with both Malcolm and Suzanne – i.e. Malcolm’s father and Colin’s father. How could that not continue a triangle? In addition, their work seems to be something to always connect them, too.
In Vienna Waltz, I thoroughly enjoyed all of the triangles, including one not mentioned above – Tsar Alexander, Tsarina Elisabeth, and Prince Adam Czartoryski. I particularly enjoyed this one since I had read about Prince Adam in Charles Conroyd Martin’s Polish triology that begins with Push Not the River. All of these triangles served to keep the mystery alive as to who killed Tatiana. Also, the real life triangles provided fascinating information about people such as Alexander, Talleyrand, and Metternich. Living in today’s world, it is often hard to realize the extent of the politial and social intrigues that existed in that time period. Thank you for informing and entertaining your readers!
July 20, 2015 at 8:41 pm
Thanks so much for posting, Betty! This is an intriguing topic, and I hope other readers chime in. I love writing about triangles, and one of the fun things in Vienna Waltz was the number of interlocking triangles, many of them real historical figures. I think it speaks volumes about the Congress and the society of the day and the men involved that Tsar Alexander and Metternich competed for the same women. One of my friends say “surely with all the women at the Congress, they didn’t have to choose the same ones” and I said, “I think that was rather the point.” Their rivalry at the conference table extended to the boudoir.
I really enjoy writing the Talleyrand/Dorothee/Karl Clam-Martinitz triangle as well, both in Vienna Waltz and in Paris Affair.
As we discussed about this week’s post, I think Suzanne, Malcolm, and Raoul are inextricably intertwined in a number of ways, though whether or not it’s a “triangle” probably depends on one’s definition. Does it mean one person choosing between two possible romantic options? Three people with strong emotional bonds? Do those bonds have to be romantic?
July 21, 2015 at 5:49 pm
I think a triangle can involve many aspects, just as your questions pose. Certainly emotional bonds play a large part, whether or not there is romance. Raoul’s connection to Malcolm and Colin involves emotional bonds and love, but not romance. I really don’t feel at the end of Mayfair that Raoul’s feelings for Suzanne involved romance either. Whereas he will always feel a strong bond to her, he pretty much made the choice to forego romantic involvement when he ‘approved’ of Suzanne marrying Malcolm. Although there were some further tense moments, I felt that Raoul was determined not to cross the line with Suzanne. Now of course he is on the path to romance with Laura. I had the feeling that he was initially drawn to Laura in the attempt to protect his ‘family’ – the need to find out her knowledge about the Rannochs and how deeply she was involved in the Elsinore League. Then later he developed feelings for her. What was your intent? I also think Raoul has so much baggage to sort through before he can truely have a meaningful romance.
Regarding the historical triangles, I still find myself intrigued by the information. You sent me to the internet to reasearch these people. I had never heard of Wilhemine of Sagan, Dorothee, or Princess Catherine Bagration. Creating the character of Princess Tatiana gave you the latitude to explore these relationships in a very believable way. If Alexander and Mettinich were in competition for Wilhemine and Catherine, why not Princess Tatiana?
Thinking about other literary triangles has brought me to another favorite author, Mary Balogh. She often includes them in her novels. I am particularly reminded of A Summer to Remember, when Neville is at the church ready to marry Lauren (long time cousin and prospective bride) and his first wife, Lily (married in haste during the war in One Night for Love and thought to be dead) walks in. What a triangle that turns out to be!Looking way back, there is also Laurie, Jo, and Amy from Little Women.
July 21, 2015 at 8:39 pm
I agree, Betty, which is sort of what I getting at when I asked if the Malcolm/Suzanne/Raoul dynamic even is a triangle by the end of Mayfair. I don’t think Raoul’s feelings for Suzanne or hers for him are primarily romantic at that point but there is a strong emotional dynamic between them (and a lot of emotional baggage, some of it romantic).
I think, as you say, Raoul starts trying to learn more about Laura (way back in Berkeley Square) because he senses that she isn’t quite what she seems, and he’s concerned for Malcolm and Suzanne and the children. But I think from early on he also likes her and is drawn to her because he senses something of a kindred spirit in the way she hides herself from the world, her sense of humor, and her inner toughness. In Mayfair he is both trying to learn more about her to protect the Rannoch family and also to protect Laura, and he is increasingly drawn to her – as often, particularly with Raoul, more than one agenda is at work 😉 I agree he has a long way to go and a lot of his own baggage to work through, but I think his last words to her in Mayfair are, from Raoul, a fairly strong emotional commitment.
Vienna Waltz is built on precisely the premise you mention – if Alexander and Metternich were involved with two of the same women, why not a third?
Mary Balogh invents great triangles with lots of emotional resonance. The Laure/Jo/Amy triangle is intriguing,and I still can’t be quite as “settled” with its resolution as I think Alcott wants us to be. There are some fabulous film triangles, including perhaps the ultimate one in Casablanca.